OBJECTIVE: To investigate biopsy complications and hospital admissions that could be reduced by the use of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All biopsies performed in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC between 1993 and 2015 were included. Biopsy complications and hospital admission data were prospectively recorded in questionnaires that were completed 2 weeks after biopsy. The ERSPC risk calculators 3 (RC3) and 4 (RC4) were applied to men attending the first and subsequent rounds of screening, respectively. Applying the predefined RC3/4 probability thresholds for prostate cancer (PCa) risk of ≥12.5% and high-grade PCa risk ≥3%, we assessed the number of complications, admissions and costs that could be reduced by avoiding biopsies in men below these thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 10 747 biopsies with complete questionnaires were included. For these biopsies a complication rate of 67.9% (7294/10 747), a post-biopsy fever rate of 3.9% (424/10747) and a hospital admission rate of 0.9% (92/10747) were recorded. The fever rate was found to be static over the years, but the hospital admission rate tripled from 0.6% (1993-1996) to 2.1% (2009-2015). Among 7704 biopsies which fit the criteria for RC3 or RC4, 35.8% of biopsies (2757/7704), 37.4% of complications (1972/5268), 39.4% of fever events (128/325) and 42.3% of admissions (30/71) could have been avoided by using one of the risk calculators. More complications could have been avoided if RC4 had been used and for more recent biopsies (2009-2015). Our findings show that 35.9% of the total cost of biopsies and complication treatment could have been avoided. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of biopsy complications, hospital admissions and costs could be reduced if biopsy decisions were based on ERSPC risk calculators instead of PSA only. This effect was most prominent in more recent biopsies and in men with repeated biopsies or screening.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate biopsy complications and hospital admissions that could be reduced by the use of European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All biopsies performed in the Rotterdam section of the ERSPC between 1993 and 2015 were included. Biopsy complications and hospital admission data were prospectively recorded in questionnaires that were completed 2 weeks after biopsy. The ERSPC risk calculators 3 (RC3) and 4 (RC4) were applied to men attending the first and subsequent rounds of screening, respectively. Applying the predefined RC3/4 probability thresholds for prostate cancer (PCa) risk of ≥12.5% and high-grade PCa risk ≥3%, we assessed the number of complications, admissions and costs that could be reduced by avoiding biopsies in men below these thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 10 747 biopsies with complete questionnaires were included. For these biopsies a complication rate of 67.9% (7294/10 747), a post-biopsy fever rate of 3.9% (424/10747) and a hospital admission rate of 0.9% (92/10747) were recorded. The fever rate was found to be static over the years, but the hospital admission rate tripled from 0.6% (1993-1996) to 2.1% (2009-2015). Among 7704 biopsies which fit the criteria for RC3 or RC4, 35.8% of biopsies (2757/7704), 37.4% of complications (1972/5268), 39.4% of fever events (128/325) and 42.3% of admissions (30/71) could have been avoided by using one of the risk calculators. More complications could have been avoided if RC4 had been used and for more recent biopsies (2009-2015). Our findings show that 35.9% of the total cost of biopsies and complication treatment could have been avoided. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of biopsy complications, hospital admissions and costs could be reduced if biopsy decisions were based on ERSPC risk calculators instead of PSA only. This effect was most prominent in more recent biopsies and in men with repeated biopsies or screening.
Authors: Vinay Prabhu; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ricardo Otazo; Daniel K Sodickson; Stella K Kang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Amir H Lebastchi; Lori Long; Andrew R Wilbur; Patrick T Gomella; Sherif Mehralivand; Michael A Daneshvar; Nitin K Yerram; Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Sandeep Gurram; Jonathan Bloom; M Minhaj Siddiqui; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2021-04-10
Authors: Mark N Alshak; Michael D Gross; Jonathan E Shoag; Aaron A Laviana; Michael A Gorin; Art Sedrakyan; Jim C Hu Journal: Data Brief Date: 2019-07-25
Authors: Samuel Carbunaru; Oluwarotimi S Nettey; Pooja Gogana; Irene B Helenowski; Borko Jovanovic; Maria Ruden; Courtney M P Hollowell; Roohollah Sharifi; Rick A Kittles; Edward Schaeffer; Peter Gann; Adam B Murphy Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Enrique Gomez Gomez; Juan José Salamanca Bustos; Julia Carrasco Valiente; Jose Luis Fernandez Rueda; Ana Blanca; José Valero Rosa; Ines Bravo Arrebola; Javier Marquez López; Juan Manuel Jimenez Vacas; Raul Luque; Maria José Requena Tapia Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692